haddy   10 #37 Posted November 15, 2016 Your rates shouldny go up as the time to pay stops when you contend it and starts again when they give you yhere final answer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
biotechpete   10 #38 Posted November 15, 2016 It isn't quite as simple as that. These small roads are part of the Broomhill permit scheme and the permits of the residents are valid in the wider scheme. But the wider scheme permits aren't valid on those roads. So, not that easy to depict on a sign (which many drivers don't pay that much attention to anyway), you still have to rely on the permit holder understanding from the terms and conditions where they can and can't park.  Drivers are always going to occasionally do it wrong despite having been pointed to the terms and conditions and there being in place the best available signing setup. The Broomhill scheme has been in place for about 10 years so any issues on enforceability of restrictions due to signing would have surfaced via parking adjudication decisions before now.  None of your council tax money is spent on any of this. Parking services costs are entirely covered by income (pay and dsiplay, permits and penalties) and they return a surplus which is spent on highway maintenance. So far from costing you more, it actually means that your money goes further.  Do you know the legal basis of issuing fines based on terms and conditions of a permit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Planner1 Â Â 437 #39 Posted November 15, 2016 Do you know the legal basis of issuing fines based on terms and conditions of a permit? Â It has been accepted by adjudicator's often enough on appeals for the last ten years, so, I do not believe the council have any concerns on the legality of doing so. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
nohands   10 #40 Posted November 15, 2016 Fair enough answer  That's no attitude for this forum. Where's the hyperbole? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix   11 #41 Posted November 16, 2016 You should realise by now that Planner1 does not create the laws, rules or regulations. Neither is he responsible for their implementation nor policing. Throughout his time on SF he has kindly and informatively tried to explain why SCC's rules and regulations exist and how they're enforced.  I do realise that and nor was I castigating him for that. However in your usual rush to castigate me you missed the point that such repeat charging is not permitted, there is plenty of evidence and adjucation decisions against this - as noted above - and no one has provided anything that says you can. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Litotes   63 #42 Posted November 16, 2016 I always wondered whose relative in the council lived on Beaufort Road.  In other schemes there are not these dispensations due to the number of permits exceeding the number of spaces. I used to have to walk up to a mile to get a parking space - our road wasn't protected. Something fishy here.  Also, I would check the times of the tickets as according to Planner1's comments they MUST be more than 24 hours apart. If there aren't then the council is potentially committing fraud as it is extorting money from you without due justification.  Although having said all that, the common concensus in the forum (from people who worked for Parking Services directly) is that only the first one would count. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...